COMMENTS

Devesh,
Thanks for taking your time to share your views in detail. That really helps.

However, I see there are two completely orthogonal vectors of your argument:

1. Runway capacity: You say runway capacity would be reached on day 1 at BIA, hence HAL should be retained.

2. Competition: On the other hand, You say you want competition and hence HAL should be there.

Now, which one is it? Both? If so, to mitigate runway capacity, HAL has to complement BIA (and not compete), which contradicts point 2.

So is it compete or complement? I'm a bit confused. Earlier I used to read that those who wanted HAL wanted it to complement BIA. Now, if it has to compete in true sense, then it should compete for the following (leaving the connectivity, as its agreed that its not a real issue):

1. International flights
2. Domestic long hawl
3. Domestic short hawl
4. Services to airlines/end users

As s_yajaman rightly pointed out, there won't be true competition from end-user stand point. There would not be real choices to the end user. Given the destination, time of travel and airline, the airport for end-user is fixed. There won't be a situation where a flight starts from HAL and stops over at BIA. So, in effect, there is no real choice for end user. On the other hand, the two airports would have to compete for the airlines. There you go, it could be that the airlines which stand to benefit and not the end user.

This means, its only the real runway capacity that should dictate, if at all, if HAL has to be retained.

Now, lets look at it objectively. Here, we have a problem. Runway capacity at BIA. Lets keep that as the primary issue. Retaining/re-opening HAL is only one of the solutions. While, its good to suggest a solution, its better to have options. What if state/cetre/AAI doesn't want to keep HAL open? What if SC strikes down to keep HAL open? What are the options? I'm sure there are other options. Having only Plan A is not good. We need to have Plan A, Plan B and if possible Plan C. We should see from that angle and not just push HAL. Having HAL as an option to solve a real issue is one thing and pushing HAL citing issues is totally different thing.

Lastly, I guess we all agree that agrument to retain HAL has come at the 11th hour. Lets not hurry. Ultimately running HAL could be the right solution, based on whatever technical details. But it need not be rushed into. What's the hurry? Lets analyze in detail, argue and aim for a more permanent solution. It could mean that HAL would be out of service for a few months. So what? Why are we thinking that its now or never? If, based on technical aspects, it is decided that BIA can't handle that much of traffic, the system (including law) should and will take care of that. Lets have faith in our system.

On the other hand, if we want to hurry into deciding to keep/close HAL now, it gives a feeling that there is a vested interest/political inclination to it, given that elections are round the corner.

• thumb_up Like
• · login or register to post comments

Hi Narayan

We have had dog his and bird hits, and thankfully the planes have made it back to the airport - how can you justify planes landing over 8 million people's heads when such "animal hits" have proven possible

This is a smear statement. Bird hits are a regular feature at almost all airports, and even BIAL has a dog problem. These happen in the course of operations. In fact BIAL has a snake problem. By that measure no airport in the world will function. :))

Noise pollution is an issue for all airports. Especially when layouts develop AFTER the airport is developed and then the residents start complaining.

BIAL should want to run the AAI terminal, and AAI should be willing to let BIAL run the terminal. Very frankly, the privatisation of AAI and separation of its operational and regulatory roles, will have a far more positive effect.

What is important is first everyone agreeing to the concept of two airports. The details can be thrashed out. Ultimately market forces will rule.

I received this comment on my blog and I feel it is very appropriate here.

-----------------------

Regards

Devesh R. Agarwal

Visit my aviation blog at http://deveshagarwal.blogspot.com

• thumb_up Like
• · login or register to post comments

Devesh,

Lets agree that above incidents which are possible in Aero-India shows, are also possible with Commercial Airliners - the likelyhood is one in a million or even less, but then it is possible. A bird hit, an engine failure or pilot error can lead a disaster to a catastrophe due to the population around the airport. 

So - Say we keep HAL airport open only for Turbo props/ATRs, this way the noise pollution is less, and "risk"level is reduced because they take ress runway, and hence have more bandwidht etc etc...

Please note the only airlines that have ATR's/Smaller aircrafts are Kingfisher/Deccan, Jet & Indian.So HOW ON EARTH DOES THIS BENEFIT LOW COST AIRLINES? what about Spicejet, Indigo, GoAir, and the others entering the market? One of the arguments to keep HAL open was that low cost airlines are burdoned by BIAL.

OK, so say you restrict the flight by distance (you say a flight of 1000kms or less can land at HAL airport (Code C aircrafts). Now, what if the flight is Bangalore > hyderabad > Delhi! So technically you have a delhi flight taking of from HAL? What if the flight is Bombay > bangalore > Chennai, will it land at HAL on the way to chennai and at BIAL on the way back?

Now say you do not allow non-direct flights and you only allow point to point flights (which I am not sure you can do legally). Again, this works against low cost airlines as their flights are always multi destination (more economical)

Will HAL be an option only for Full service airlines? In which case the logic of keeping HAL open so that people dont "spend" more on flights is viable anymore..

I really would like to hear your take on this?

Thanks Narayan

• thumb_up Like
• · login or register to post comments

"Noise pollution is an issue for all airports. Especially when layouts develop AFTER the airport is developed and then the residents start complaining."

At heathrow, there are time restrictions on night landings, as it disturbs peoples sleeps. What makes them more qualfiable for a quiet nights sleep than us?

 Yes Laws have been violated and we didnt do anything about it. But now you can't move people out of there or expect them to suffer.

We have a new airport, with restricted construction around, let us not repeat the same mistakes, let us enforce the laws, so we ourselves dont suffer in the end.

• thumb_up Like
• · login or register to post comments

Hi TS

Thanks for taking the time to visit my blog.

Airport capacity is a factor of many things. I do not know if you have read my article http://deveshagarwal.blogspot.com/2008/03/real-capacity-of-bengaluru.html, and my article http://deveshagarwal.blogspot.com/2008/04/bial-capacity-conundrum.html.

These get in to the technical aspects of BIAL capacity, and in fact use Mumbai as a base for computing BIAL capacity. Mumbai in fact is not a good representative base, but is the closest. Mumbai has a significantly higher percentage of international traffic i.e. larger planes more passenger per flight. This is important becuase each flight takes up the same time slot on the runway. Second, Mumbai ATCs are the most senior and experienced of AAI controllers, therefore their efficiency will be significantly higher than BIAL's AAI ATC. Third, Mumbai is not constrained by various airspace. Check the airmap of Bangalore in my "Real Capacity" article.

Even ignoring all these, giving BIAL maximum benefit of the doubt, the capacity per runway works out to 15.22 million.

Actually, I would love to meet you and the other subscribers of Praja, and make a detailed presentation, and have an interaction. I wonder how we can facilitate this ?

A crucial economic aspect of air traffic is that it grows at a rate of 2x - 2.5x the rate of economic growth. This is a global formula endorsed by IATA and ICAO. In its meeting with IATA, BIAL has projected an air traffic growth rate of only 12.25%, implying an economic growth of only 6% for Bangalore, when FinMin is talking 7%+ for the nation as a whole.

Now either BIAL know something about Bangalore's economy that we don't, or their assumptions are just plain wrong. Check out this graph http://picasaweb.google.com/dev.agarwal/BIALGraphs/photo#5190952967182244594

Also please read this story http://deveshagarwal.blogspot.com/2008/03/bial-needs-to-soften-their-stand-no.html.

Another MAJOR area of concern is cargo. I am sure that most Praja visitors are unaware of the fact that over 50% of Bangalore's cargo is carried by air. Rs. 50,000 Cr. Like it or not, industry and commerce are an integral part of any city's ecosystem.

The site was chosen in full consultation with BIAL. Yelahanka was known, but BIAL had its master plan rammed down the throats of Indian Air Force and Bangalore, by GoI and GoK.

Check out my article http://deveshagarwal.blogspot.com/2008/04/is-lrde-test-facility-casualty-of.html. A Rs. 300 Crore test facility is being shifted to accomodate BIAL. That is OUR money that is being squandered. Someone should be held accountable for this needless expense.

I have detailed the land issues in my article http://deveshagarwal.blogspot.com/2008/04/perils-of-pioneering-bangalores-loss-of.html.

Just for your information, the full 4000 acres is sold to BIAL, but I am not challenging the land itself, rather what is being done of the land i.e. use, and comparing the amount of land to air traffic.

The regulation of BIAL will only come with the appointment of the AERA, and that is a while away.

Let us not forget, once again working piece of infrastructure, be it a factory or an airport terminal, is shut, degredation begins immediately. To re-activate an airport is a 1 year process.

-----------------------

Regards

Devesh R. Agarwal

Visit my aviation blog at http://deveshagarwal.blogspot.com

Subscribe to my feed http://feeds.feedburner.com/BangaloreAviationBlog

• thumb_up Like
• · login or register to post comments